PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate integrated training for aphasia (ITA), a multicomponent language-production treatment based on part-whole learning that systematically trains lexical retrieval, sentence production, and discourse-level communications. Specific research objectives were to evaluate acquisition of target structures, statistical parameters associated with learning variables, treatment generalization, and the efficacy of individual treatment components. METHOD: ITA was administered to 3 individuals with nonfluent aphasia following a multiple-baseline, across-behaviors design. Effect size and correlational coefficients were computed to assess acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of target structures. Standardized tests and a treatment efficacy questionnaire were also completed. RESULTS: A significant treatment effect was found in 2 of the 3 participants. In addition, as is seen in normal skill acquisition, practice time and error rate were significantly correlated. All participants demonstrated evidence of generalization on standardized language measures. Only 1 participant improved, however, on the communication measures. Results of the treatment component analysis revealed significant differences in the perceived efficacy of individual therapy tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Findings add to the evidence supporting multicomponent aphasia treatments, provide preliminary support for ITA and the application of a part-whole learning approach, and suggest that specific treatment components may contribute differentially to outcomes and generalization effects.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate integrated training for aphasia (ITA), a multicomponent language-production treatment based on part-whole learning that systematically trains lexical retrieval, sentence production, and discourse-level communications. Specific research objectives were to evaluate acquisition of target structures, statistical parameters associated with learning variables, treatment generalization, and the efficacy of individual treatment components. METHOD: ITA was administered to 3 individuals with nonfluent aphasia following a multiple-baseline, across-behaviors design. Effect size and correlational coefficients were computed to assess acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of target structures. Standardized tests and a treatment efficacy questionnaire were also completed. RESULTS: A significant treatment effect was found in 2 of the 3 participants. In addition, as is seen in normal skill acquisition, practice time and error rate were significantly correlated. All participants demonstrated evidence of generalization on standardized language measures. Only 1 participant improved, however, on the communication measures. Results of the treatment component analysis revealed significant differences in the perceived efficacy of individual therapy tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Findings add to the evidence supporting multicomponent aphasia treatments, provide preliminary support for ITA and the application of a part-whole learning approach, and suggest that specific treatment components may contribute differentially to outcomes and generalization effects.